Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 331–344 | Cite as

Extent, properties, and landscape setting of geographically isolated wetlands in urban southern New England watersheds

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

We assessed the extent and characteristics of geographically isolated wetlands (i.e., wetlands completely surrounded by upland) in a series of watersheds in the urban northeast US. We applied a previously developed index of urbanization to a sample of 10 watersheds selected at random from a set of 30 watersheds whose boundaries lay within the borders of Rhode Island, USA. The index of urbanization in our sample watersheds ranged over more than an order of magnitude and increased with increasing amount of urban land use in the watersheds (r 2 = 0.51, F = 8.22, P = 0.02). The density of isolated wetlands in the watersheds averaged 1.93 ± 0.21 wetlands km−2 and comprised 38.2 ± 1.77% of all wetlands. Isolated wetlands were smaller than those connected to other waters (non-isolated), and accounted for 6.01–16.5% of the total wetland area in the watersheds. The area of isolated wetlands as a percent of all wetland area significantly increased with increasing watershed urbanization (r 2 = 0.62, F = 12.9, P = 0.007). Isolated wetlands were predominantly deciduous forested wetlands, and urban land cover in the 50 m buffer surrounding isolated wetlands was significantly higher than in the 50 m surrounding non-isolated wetlands. The proportion of urban land cover was greater in a 150 than a 50 m buffer surrounding the wetlands. Our results suggest that an increase in the index of urbanization of 50 will result in 7% of the watershed’s wetlands being lost from federal protection. These findings indicate that the process of urbanization, along with accompanying habitat fragmentation, may result in an increase in the vulnerability of wetlands to loss and degradation and therefore has implications for the management and conservation of geographically isolated wetlands.

Keywords

Clean Water Act Geographically isolated wetlands Landscape setting Urbanization Watershed 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Erica Sachs for her efforts to assess the error in remote sensing data, and Frank Golet for providing information and insights into state wetlands regulations. We also thank Dennis Skidds, Jeff Hollister, and Anne Kuhn for providing helpful comments on the manuscript. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation. Although the research described in this article has been funded wholly by the US Environmental Protection Agency, it has not been subjected to Agency-level review. Therefore, it does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. This is the Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division contribution number AED-07-030. The research described in this article has been funded wholly by the US Environmental Protection Agency; however, it does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. This is the Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division contribution number AED-07-030.

References

  1. Alig RJ, Kline JD, Lichtenstein M (2004) Urbanization on the US landscape: looking ahead in the 21st century. Landsc Urban Plan 69:219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JR, Hardy EE, Roach JT et al (1976) A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. US Geological Survey, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedford BL, Godwin KS (2003) Fens of the United States: distribution, characteristics, and scientific connection versus legal isolation. Wetlands 23:608–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colburn EA (2004) Vernal pools: natural history and conservation. MacDonald and Woodward. Blacksburg, Virginia, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Comer P, Goodin K, Tomaino A, Hammerson G, Kittel G, Menard S, Nordman C, Pyne M, Reid M, Sneddon L, Snow K (2005) Biodiversity values of geographically isolated wetlands in the United States. NatureServe, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC et al (1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31Google Scholar
  7. Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 128:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Downing DM, Winer C, Wood LD (2003) Navigating through Clean Water Act jurisdiction: a legal review. Wetlands 23:475–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Downing DM, Nadeau TL, Kwok R (2007) Technical and scientific challenges in implementing Rapanos’ “Water of the United States”. Natl Resour Env 22:42–45Google Scholar
  10. Foster DR (1992) Land-use history (1730–1990) and vegetation dynamics in central New England, USA. J Ecol 80:753–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greeson PB, Clark JR, Clark JE (1979) Wetland function and values: the state of our understanding. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands, November 7–10, 1978. American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  12. Houlahan JE, Findlay CS (2003) The effects of adjacent land use on wetland amphibian species richness and community composition. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:1078–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Houlahan JE, Keddy PA, Makkay K et al (2006) The effects of adjacent land use on wetland species richness and community composition. Wetlands 26:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leibowitz SG (2003) Isolated wetlands and their functions: an ecological perspective. Wetlands 23:517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marsh DM, Trenham PC (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conserv Biol 15:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mazerolle MJ, Poulin M, Lavoie C et al (2006) Animal and vegetation patterns in natural and man-made bog pools: implications for restoration. Freshw Biol 51:333–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McMahon G, Cuffney TF (2000) Quantifying urban intensity in drainage basins for assessing stream ecological conditions. J Am Water Resour As 36:1247–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mitchell J, Paton PWC, Raithel CR (2008) Reptiles, birds, and mammals. In: Calhoun A, de Maynadier P (eds) Vernal pools in the glaciated northeast. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  19. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) Wetlands, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Murphy J (2006) Rapanos v. United States: wading through murky waters. Natl Wetlands News 28:1–5Google Scholar
  21. Osterkamp WR, Wood WW (1987) Playa-lake basins on the Southern High Plains of Texas and New Mexico. Part 1. Hydrologic, geomorphic, and geologic evidence for their development. Geol Soc Am Bull 99:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paton PWC (2005) A review of vertebrate community composition in seasonal forest pools of the northeastern United States. Wetlands Ecol Manage 13:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paton PWC, Crouch WB (2002) Using the phenology of pond-breeding amphibians to develop conservation strategies. Conserv Biol 16:194–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Robinson GR, Kapo KE (2003) Generalized lithology and lithogeochemical character of near-surface Bedrock in the New England Region. US Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  25. Rubbo MJ, Kiesecker JM (2005) Amphibian breeding distribution in an urbanized landscape. Conserv Biol 19:504–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Russell KR, Guynn DC, Hanlin HG (2002) Importance of small isolated wetlands for herpetofaunal diversity in managed, young growth forests in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Forest Ecol Manag 163:43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Santos AM, Tabarelli M (2002) Distance from roads and cities as a predictor of habitat loss and fragmentation in the caatinga vegetation of Brazil. Braz J Biol 62:897–905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saunders SC, Mislivets MR, Jiquan C et al (2002) Effects of roads on landscape structure within nested ecological units of the Northern Great Lakes Region, USA. Biol Conserv 103:209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seaber PR, Kapinos FP, Knapp GL (1987) Hydrologic unit maps: US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294Google Scholar
  31. Semlitsch RD (2008) Differentiating migration and dispersal processes for pond-breeding amphibians. J Wildl Manage 72:260–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR (1998) Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conserv Biol 12:1129–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Semlitsch RD, Skelly D (2008) Pool-breeding amphibians. In: Calhoun A, de Maynadier P (eds) Science and conservation of vernal pools in northeastern North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  34. Sharitz RR (2003) Carolina bay wetlands: unique habitats of the southeastern United States. Wetlands 23:550–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simcox AC (1990) Water resources of Massachesetts. US Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 90-9144Google Scholar
  36. Smith MA, Green DM (2005) Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations? Ecography 28:110–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sorrie BA (1994) Coastal plain ponds of New England. Biol Conserv 68:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stevens TH, Benin S, Larson JS (1995) Public attitudes and economic values for wetland preservation in New England. Wetlands 15:226–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tiner RW (1989) Wetlands of Rhode Island. US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Newton Corner, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  40. Tiner RW (2003a) Geographically isolated wetlands of the United States. Wetlands 23:494–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tiner RW (2003b) Estimated extent of geographically isolated wetlands in selected areas of the United States. Wetlands 23:636–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tiner RW (2004) Remotely-sensed indicators for monitoring the general condition of “natural habitat” in watersheds: an application for Delaware’s Nanticoke River watershed. Ecol Indic 4:227–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tiner RW, Bergquist HC, DeAlessio GP et al (2002) Geographically isolated wetlands: A preliminary assessment of their characteristics and status in selected areas of the United States. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife, Service Northeast Region, Hadley, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  44. Trenham PC, Shaffer HB (2005) Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for population viability. Ecol Appl 15:1158–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Buskirk J (2005) Local and landscape influence on amphibian occurrence and abundance. Ecol 86:1936–1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Whigham DF, Jordan TE (2003) Isolated wetlands and water quality. Wetlands 23:541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Willson JD, Dorcas ME (2003) Effects of habitat disturbance on stream salamanders: implications for buffer zones and watershed management. Conserv Biol 17:763–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Atlantic Ecology DivisionUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryNarragansettUSA
  2. 2.Computer Sciences CorporationNarragansettUSA

Personalised recommendations